FREEDOM OF
INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF
CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of
a Complaint by FINAL DECISION
Jon Lender and
the Hartford Courant,
Complainants
against Docket #FIC 86-155
Commissioner and
Deputy Commissioner, Department of Administrative Services of the State of
Connecticut,
Respondents August 13, 1986
The above captioned matter was heard
as a contested case on June 30, 1986, at which time the complainants and the
respondents appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony,
exhibits and argument on the complaint.
After consideration of the entire
record the following facts are found:
1.
The respondents are public agencies within the meaning of 1-18a(a),
G.S.
2.
By letter dated June 2, 1986 the complainants made a request of the
respondents for a copy of the report prepared by the Internal Audit Unit
concerning a number of allegations of misconduct in the State Bureau of
Purchasing.
3.
On June 2, 1986 the complainants' request was denied by the Department
of Administrative Services Communication Director, on the ground that the
report was a preliminary draft and therefore exempt from disclosure.
4.
By letter filed with the Commission on June 3, 1986 the complainants
appealed the denial of their request.
5.
At the hearing before the Commission, the respondents agreed to provide
the complainants with a copy of the requested report.
Docket #FIC
86-155
Page 2
6.
It is found that the report in question stems from allegations of
impropriety within the Department of Administrative Services and is one of many
reports prepared by the Internal Audit Unit on this matter.
7.
It is found that at the time of the complainants' request the report in
question was substantially complete in both content and form and that it did
not constitute a preliminary draft or note as defined by 1-19(b)(1), G.S.
8.
It is also found that the report which the complainants requested on
June 2, 1986 is exactly the same report provided to the complainants at the
time of the hearing.
9.
It is therefore concluded that the respondents violated 1-15
and 1-19(a), G.S., by failing to disclose a copy of the requested report
promptly.
10.
The Commission notes that the respondents were motivated by an
understandable desire to protect certain employees within the Department of
Administrative Services from allegations of wrongdoing which were
unfounded. However, the impunity
enjoyed by them in the present case will not endure if there is not strict
compliance with the disclosure provisions of 1-15 and 1-19(a), G.S.
The following order by the
Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the
above captioned complaint:
1.
The respondents shall henceforth comply strictly with the provisions of
1-15 and 1-19(a), G.S.
Approved by order of the Freedom of
Information Commission at its regular meeting of August 13, 1986.
ÿ
Karen J.
Haggett
Clerk of the Commission